Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
(Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji vs
Palapetty Muhammed & Anr). Hence, in view of the original courier receipt on record Ex. CW1/7
and non-challenge of the same by the accused either in the cross-examination or throughout the
trial, the court does not find any reason to discard the same as being forged and fabricated.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going through the said
decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of
the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the accused. In that case
before this Court, the defence by the accused was that the cheque amount was given by the
complainant to the accused by way of loan. When the proceedings were initiated under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the
defence and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant
failed to prove and establish his financial capacity. Therefore, this Court was satisfied that
the accused had a probable defence and consequently in absence of complainant having
failed to prove his financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case,
the accused never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view
that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in
support of his probable defence, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act
about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable,
thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that
stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more
particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque .
(emphasis added)
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16), their
Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
The State Of Madras vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer on 26 September, 1957
Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the Court "shall presume" the liability
of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted
in State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AR 1958 SC 61, it is obligatory on the Court
to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the
presumption had been established. "It introduces an exception to the general rule as to
the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such
a presumption is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact
which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs.
Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of
innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to
prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.